Burke Ramsey Files 750 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against CBS

[icedtea4me]

To prove the people you say did it you must prove no one else could. I agree the most like killer lays in the house, however to suggest no one else could have done it is mere folly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Trying to put forth an IDI theory on this board is like trying to be a conservative in the vast majority of colleges these days.

 

[Tadpole12]

[h=3]A short review of the JonBenet Ramsey case, by Richard Eikelenboom ...[/h]www.ifscolorado.com/a-short-review-of-the-jonbenet-ramsey-case-by-ri...

1. Cached

Jan 1, 2017 - Case outline. I was asked to review the JonBenet Ramsey case for A&E. For this review, I received reports, pictures and tables with DNA results ...



http://www.ifscolorado.com/a-short-review-of-the-jonbenet-ramsey-case-by-richard-eikelenboom/
[h=1]A short review of the JonBenet Ramsey case, by Richard Eikelenboom[/h]Posted By IFS
Case outline
I was asked to review the JonBenet Ramsey case for A&E. For this review, I received reports, pictures and tables with DNA results. I assume that the DNA profiles provided to me in tables are a correct representation of the raw data. However, I did not receive the raw data of the DNA profiles, meaning that verification of DNA results was not possible.
The Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did several DNA investigations in 1997 but used non-sensitive, not very informative DNA tests, which was normal for the US at that time. CBI did find some DNA from unknown sources but the evidential value is low. Because of this reason I will not review these results any further in this article.
What is interesting though, is that early in 1997 the parents were obviously suspects. Below one can see part of a report from CBI dated from January 15, 1997. The homicide took place around December 26, 1996. So, in a couple of weeks the parent became suspects. Knowing a fair deal about miscarriages of justice world-wide, I can state that considering the parents at such an early stage does not help truth finding and keeping an open mind. It could be that in the US this is normal practice but in Europe you need to gather (a lot) evidence first, before one can call someone a suspect in a case. E.g. a confession, DNA evidence, reliable witnesses etc. I don’t believe there was any of that in the first weeks of the case. Making the parents suspect can cause tunnel vision which can lead to overlooking important evidence. I don’t say that the parents are not of interest when a girl of six is found killed in her own house, but an open mind is extremely important to prevent tunnel vision.

I have talked with several television networks about the JonBenet Ramsey case. I found it interesting that most of them had a certain angle on the case which was leading in the questions and broadcasts. It did not appear that any of the television networks were interested in all evidence and opportunities of investigation to see which ever direction that would lead. For that reason, I will put my ideas in this small article. Hopefully, somebody one day will do something with it.
In 1996, DNA investigations were performed but DNA awareness was not present by most perpetrators. Furthermore, touch DNA was not “invented” yet. Criminals could not anticipate that we would be able to get DNA from objects that they had touched. In this light, it is unlikely that the perpetrator(s) in the JonBenet Ramsey case could prevent leaving DNA on the victim and touched items.
Several important findings can be obtained from the pathology report. Below you find some findings in the pathology report written about the autopsy on JonBenet. Why is this important for a DNA investigation? Some scientists don’t want to know anything about a case before DNA testing because of tunnel vision. We are not supporters of this school of thought, because without information the investigation will be far less efficient and a lot of important evidence will never be found. The scientist can get biased by information but that bias does not influence the outcome of the DNA result. I can think that a suspect must be the perpetrator of a crime but if he/she had never contact with the victim I won’t be able to find his/her DNA. I had this several times when I started coordinating DNA cases. Police and DA’s pushed my thoughts in the direction of a suspect. Soon I learned always to follow the DNA and not my bias against a suspect. If the suspect killed/raped the victim, I would find the evidence.

The conclusions in the autopsy reveal a lot of (forceful) contact between perpetrator(s) and the victim, the clothing and other pieces of evidence. During my career, I have performed a lot of crime scene investigations including scenes which were staged. This would be the first where parent(s) would go to such extreme violence and sexual assault to stage a crime scene. Weird stuff happens during crimes; therefore it is important to follow the evidence and not your gut feeling. We will analyse the pictures and the autopsy report later to give more information about the injuries and time of death and the sequence of events.
DNA investigation
It looks like Denver DA Mitch Morrissey wanted to indict the father and the mother. There is one problem however, in that his own Denver police lab did find DNA of at least one unknown male inside the panties of JonBenet. From the complex DNA mixtures form the panties an DNA profile of an unknown man was deduced. A profile that does not match the parents but that did not stop Morrissey of willing to indict the parents for their daughter’s murder. In my opinion based on thousands of (DNA) cases, DNA of an unknown male donor on the (inside) of a panty of a girl of 6 years old is very important. If you think it is not crime related than there needs to be a very good explanation for that. Some of the biggest miscarriages of justice take place because people don’t find it necessary to find a good explanation for certain DNA findings. BODE technology, a private lab, made things worse for Morrissey because they confirmed the results from the Denver lab. They took two samples from the long-johns which Jon Benet was wearing. These samples were not taken at random but from the sides where a perpetrator could have pulled them down. If you find an indication of the same unknown male on a girl of 6 that has been raped, you want to know who that is, before you starting an indictment of the parents.
The only way for this exculpatory DNA to go away is if huge mistakes were made by either the Denver lab and/or CBI. These mistakes could be a contamination combined with the inability to detect such a mistake. If this is the case, the lab at fault could lose its accreditation.
A deduced DNA profile from the panties was put in the national DNA database (CODIS). Never a matcht was obtained. There is a problem though, if one allele (number) is put wrongly in the DNA database there will never be a match.
Searching non-stringent in the DNA database should be performed but this is not common in the US. With this method one can find close matches to the profile and it will give a list of persons of interest. Furthermore, a search for familial DNA could be performed. The donor may not be in the database but perhaps his father, brother or other family members.
The racial background of the profile of the unknown male, which was deduced from the mixture from the panties, can be investigated.
Further investigations for DNA
From information obtained from reports and documentaries, I made a list evidence which should be investigated on blood, saliva, semen, sweat and touch DNA.Beside a standard autosomal DNA investigation, all samples should be investigated on Y-chromosomal DNA, which is only present in males. The victim’s DNA (female) is than filtered out. This gives a much bigger chance on finding DNA belonging to the perpetrator(s) on different incriminating locations.
Below I put up a list of items of interest. It speaks for itself why most items can be investigated for (touch) DNA.
The list of items of interest:

1. The garrotte
2. Rope on garrotte
3. Fingernails JonBenet
4. Hair JonBenet
5. Nek samples JonBenet
6. Mouth oral vaginal and anal swabs JonBenet
7. Ligature of wrist JonBenet
8. Shirt JonBenet was wearing
9. Long johns JonBenet was wearing
10. Blanket jr
11. Ring right hands JonBenet
12. Panties on touch DNA
13. Blue rope
14. Maglite
15. White blanket
16. Duct tape on the white blanket (duct tape is difficult to handle with gloves on)
17. DNA on ransom note
18. Suitcase placed under window
19. Window basement
20. Items in the suitcase (sham, duvet and a Dr. Seuss book)

Probably there is more evidence of interest available, but this list is a good start of the most important items. When a good DNA investigation is performed DNA of the perpetrator(s) should be obtained.
If no DNA results are obtained, which I find very unlikely, as a last resort the body of JonBenet could be exhumed to take new and better samples from bruises and locations where the perpetrators(s) could have touched her.
To be continued…….."

 

[HarmonyE.]

Trying to put forth an IDI theory on this board is like trying to be a conservative in the vast majority of colleges these days.

What possible relevance does this sort of statement have to the facts of this case? Seriously, (and I hate myself when I feed trolls) why are you constantly trying to derail threads and insult posters who make far more coherent posts than you ever have? If you have something insightful, intelligent and on-point to say, by all means say it. Otherwise you are no better than someone constantly posting that they make 10,000 dollars a week working from the comfort of home so please call this 800 number now.

 

[ZoriahNZ]

I recently caught a program on a retired detective who investigated the case. Went in through the window left open in the basement, questioned the snow around the house theory as there was none on the paths and also questioned the partial DNA.
The partial DNA said Hispanic Male. Are there any of the neighbours which match this profile?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You might want to check out some more documentaries which aren't so heavily biased towards the Ramsey's and the IDI theory - Dateline, CBS etc. Lou Smit was hired by the Ramseys and his theories have been thoroughly debunked (for example the stun gun). There are some decent books out there which examine the case evidence in more detail and explore different theories too. James Kolar's Foreign Faction and Steve Thomas' Jonbenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation are good places to start.

RadarOnline has two videos which are official footage of the crime scene -
here: http://radaronline.com/videos/jon-benet-ramsey-murder-crime-scene-video/
and
here: http://radaronline.com/videos/jonbenet-ramsey-murder-scene-video-camera-footage/


These forums hold a wealth of threads discussing many of the details and theories at length. It's a treasure trove of information.

But be aware that the only theory currently now on the table here is RDI. If you want to talk more about an intruder hypothesis or other suspects outside of the immediate family, you might find a different forum more your cup of tea.

Many of the veterans here have exhaustively gone over the evidence, and over time ruled out all but Patsy, John and Burke as participants in what occurred to poor JonBenet that night. This is due to investigation, research and logical reasoning/speculation. It can get tiring to re-hash things which have already been discussed ad nauseum and debunked months or even years ago. However, since I'm still fairly new here myself, I'll do my best to answer your points.

With a quick google search I was able to find info to refute some of the claims you brought up:

Here is Lou Smit climbing through the basement window. Note how his body fills the entire window frame.

The crime scene video footage taken early that morning shows that there were cobwebs present on the window. One of which would have been obliterated had any person of adult size tried to slide through that opening.

The other web is proof that the window had not been broken that night but months earlier (as was confirmed by JR himself in the initial report).

In addition to this, there is no evidence of soil, leaf debris or dust having been knocked onto the inside floor of the basement room. Crimescene video footage and photos show that there was plenty of leaf debris directly outside the window and a heavy layer of dust on the sill which was undisturbed.

Since I am only allowed to attach up to 5 photos per post. I will make another comment to continue...

 

[ZoriahNZ]

Here are some photos of the exterior of the house.

Please note that multiple photos were taken at different times throughout the day. You have to allow for the fact that there would have been some melt later in the day due to the sun. But here you can see some frost and snow. This corroborates the police reports which said that in the early morning there was snow and frost on the ground outside but no visible footprints which might point to an intruder. What reason would LE have to lie about this?

From FFJ forums:

Chief Kolar on Reddit:

"There was a hard frost on the grassy areas of the yard when officers first arrived that morning and there were NO SIGNS OF FOOT PRINTS IN THOSE AREAS. The sidewalks and drive could be walked upon and SHOWED NO SIGNS OF PASSING. Somehow, the press reported the conditions as being covered in snow, which was not an accurate representation of the scene. CSI's also tested the deck outside the locked door of JBR's bedroom and there were no signs of disturbance in the coating of frost there until they stepped outside."

Whitson supplemental report:

"I was advised that Officer Barry Weiss had already photographed the house and DIDN'T FIND ANY OBVIOUS CRIME SCENE WHERE THERE HAD BEEN A STRUGGLE. I was also told there was NO SIGNS OF FORCED ENTRY and there NO FOOTPRINTS OF POSSIBLE SUSPECTS FOUND OUTSIDE THE HOME."

As for the Touch DNA, a poster already gave you a more recent link regarding that topic, but the CBS special also raises questions about any earlier claims of tDNA exonerating anyone.

http://nypost.com/2016/09/12/jonbenet-ramsey-series-questions-key-dna-evidence/

"But when current Boulder DA Stan Garnett was elected in 2009 and took over the case, Coombes says he became aware of a mishandling of the DNA testing, that “They had deviated and dropped down to four markers as opposed to the standard [13]” usually used in forensic analysis.
“We all shed DNA all the time within our skin cells. It can be deposited anywhere at any time for various reasons, reasons that are benign,” Coombes says. “To clear somebody just on the premise of touch DNA, especially when you have a situation where the crime scene wasn’t secure at the beginning . . . really is a stretch.”

In James Kolar's book, he claimed there were in fact SIX artifact samples found, with six unique profiles, all unknown, 5 male, 1 female. Are we going to assume six people murdered JonBenet? tDNA is useful if it establishes suspicious contact, for example if there was a match on CODIS of a sex offender in the area. That would set up a red flag if it was on her panties. However, there are ways for there to be non-suspicious contact. For example a factory worker handling the fresh panties before packaging. It should also be noted that there WERE tDNA artifacts belonging to Burke and Patsy on the pink Barbie nightgown found near the body. But it's hard to prove when they got there, could just be innocent contact.

This is a good thread discussing it, that I found at FFJ:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...NA-revisited-in-light-of-James-Kolar%92s-book

Hope this helps.

 

[Tortoise]

No this is my point. The new testing is partial DNA not DNA as it used to be there. They said the partial came from the pjs outside on both sides and inside however if this is the case, and if it is Hispanic, then it is not the son father or mother. The Window in the basement was open, the photos of the day prove the snow was not around the house as police said it was.

Plus there was food eaten in the kitchen some say, if true then you have a very cold calculating person not a kid. They were to fly out the next morning, tickets were bought, any intruder could not have known this because it was a snap decision.

The ligature was made in the basement and the nail marks in the neck could only have come from the girl, thus she was not knocked unconscious as some believed. The police dismissed the basement because they said the opening was too small, but an ex detective called Smit got in there. The grate was unlocked.

The police tried to disprove the grate then by saying the leaves proved it had not been moved. Remember this is the same police who said the snow was right round the house.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Take a look at the crime scene photo of snow next to the grate by the basement window.

 

[Sherlockknows]

Read and learn. The more you know, the more you will understand that the intruder theory is the only folly in the JonBenet Ramsey case.

Recommended reading: Foreign Faction

What I know is the police did contradict themselves on the snow, it is not an easy mistake to make. It's either there or it isn't.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Sherlockknows]

Here are some photos of the exterior of the house.


Please note that multiple photos were taken at different times throughout the day. You have to allow for the fact that there would have been some melt later in the day due to the sun. But here you can see some frost and snow. This corroborates the police reports which said that in the early morning there was snow and frost on the ground outside but no visible footprints which might point to an intruder. What reason would LE have to lie about this?

From FFJ forums:



As for the Touch DNA, a poster already gave you a more recent link regarding that topic, but the CBS special also raises questions about any earlier claims of tDNA exonerating anyone.

http://nypost.com/2016/09/12/jonbenet-ramsey-series-questions-key-dna-evidence/



In James Kolar's book, he claimed there were in fact SIX artifact samples found, with six unique profiles, all unknown, 5 male, 1 female. Are we going to assume six people murdered JonBenet? tDNA is useful if it establishes suspicious contact, for example if there was a match on CODIS of a sex offender in the area. That would set up a red flag if it was on her panties. However, there are ways for there to be non-suspicious contact. For example a factory worker handling the fresh panties before packaging. It should also be noted that there WERE tDNA artifacts belonging to Burke and Patsy on the pink Barbie nightgown found near the body. But it's hard to prove when they got there, could just be innocent contact.

This is a good thread discussing it, that I found at FFJ:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...NA-revisited-in-light-of-James-Kolar%92s-book

Hope this helps.

Very interesting. I have been schooled

However. Based on this I am still not convinced an intruder could not be a neighbour.

The person or persons involved knew this house well there is no doubt, everyone on there road or nearly every trapped through the house at some time.

If people believe the theory of the kid doing it then they didn't let them in to later say it could be a neighbour they were in our house.

Was there a local ring or other attacks or other abused neighbours by their parents reported over the years?

Was there similar attacks in the neighbourhood?

Is there anyone in the family greater family who was a pervert?

All the DNA collected associated with the parents could be natural, it would be unusual however if the son's DNA was there


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SerenitySprings]

To prove the people you say did it you must prove no one else could. I agree the most like killer lays in the house, however to suggest no one else could have done it is mere folly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

By this logic one would have to prove that the universe could only have been formed by the hand of God or have irrefutable proof that science is responsible. Because we will always religious people handing the credit to God and we will always have scientists proffering other theories, the "proof" does not exist. And as with the JB case, there is no smoking gun.

The fact is that in a court of law, a theory regarding IDI would only have to plant reasonable doubt within the minds of the jury and/or judge, and that's only if the prosecutor named a specific person in the RDI theory. This case will never be tried in a court of law because there simply is not enough proof that *anyone* did or did not do it.

My hope is that one of the people who *know*, beyond a shadow of a doubt, who did it will have written it down to be released after all the major players are no longer with us or confess on their death bed. But if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak*, so hopefully we'll see the entire grand jury records be unsealed in our lifetimes.

*Quoted from an episode of Firefly. Alas, I cannot take credit for a truly well-written pun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[kanzz]

What I know is the police did contradict themselves on the snow, it is not an easy mistake to make. It's either there or it isn't.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The post just before yours shows an image of the SNOW on the GRATE. There is no contradiction.

 

[Ambitioned]

Very interesting. I have been schooled

However. Based on this I am still not convinced an intruder could not be a neighbour.

The person or persons involved knew this house well there is no doubt, everyone on there road or nearly every trapped through the house at some time.

If people believe the theory of the kid doing it then they didn't let them in to later say it could be a neighbour they were in our house.

Was there a local ring or other attacks or other abused neighbours by their parents reported over the years?

Was there similar attacks in the neighbourhood?

Is there anyone in the family greater family who was a pervert?

All the DNA collected associated with the parents could be natural, it would be unusual however if the son's DNA was there

It couldn't be a neighbor. According to a few reports, any time there was activity outside the dogs would bark like crazy. No one heard any barking dogs that night.

You can throw hundreds of red herrings out if you like but as kanzz stated, it was one of three people inside the house that night. No intruders, no neighbors, no Santa, etc.

 

[Miz Adventure]

If it was an intruder then he was a very considerate one - that metal grille must have weighed a lot yet he took the time to put it back in it's place.

And all the equipment he used inside the home was neatly replaced too.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

Take a look at the crime scene photo of snow next to the grate by the basement window.

Wow, is this new? I don't think I've ever seen that before. I see it's from Shakedown, is this something they've dug up?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

Wow, is this new? I don't think I've ever seen that before. I see it's from Shakedown, is this something they've dug up?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Shakedown duo (Lisa and Nick) are brilliant for sourcing information, I've no idea how they do it.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*You can throw hundreds of red herrings out if you like but as kanzz stated, it was one of three people inside the house that night. No intruders, no neighbors, no Santa, etc.

I disagree. Santa was definitely there.

 

[Miz Adventure]

I disagree. Santa was definitely there.

He must have come down the chimney and gone back up the same way then.

 

[CherCher]

Wow, is this new? I don't think I've ever seen that before. I see it's from Shakedown, is this something they've dug up?

I remember seeing this photo within the first few weeks of the crime. It's not something you'll see very much of these days. Just as the Rs and the media tried to bury the NASA voice enhanced 911 call, they also tried to bury this photo because it didn't fit the Ramsey narrative. But it was taken before the snow melted on the 26th.

 

[Sherlockknows]

Wow, is this new? I don't think I've ever seen that before. I see it's from Shakedown, is this something they've dug up?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It could have snowed after someone left. Footprints disappear very quickly. Plus the grate was not as heavy as people are saying.

The idea the dogs would go crazy is simple nonsense. If there was a Peado ring in the area and one of the family, say the father was in it, the dogs wouldn't be barking if they were already in the house. Not when they owner is around.

I think everyone on this thread is convinced the kid banged her over the head and daddy and mummy strangled her to finish her off to make it come across like an intruder. Take a second to think about it if you have a kid?

Also by the sound of this thread there were no similar things happen within 20km of this house, and no neighbours have any history of any sexual acts on minors, is this certain?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Cranberry]

Oh Rhett, let me alone!

 

[icedtea4me]

He must have come down the chimney and gone back up the same way then.

No. According to him, he got out of the Jaguar and carried JonBenet upstairs.